Im NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FLAMMIN OF THIS THREAD

Im NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FLAMMIN OF THIS THREAD

Im NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FLAMMIN OF THIS THREAD

Im NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FLAMMIN OF THIS THREAD

Ow hell... The starter is SOO STUPID! I can't resist:

WHAT A STUPID WAY OF LOOKIN AT THE MARKET!

IF PS3 WINS. What then?! U'll be BUYING 600$ CONSOLES FOR THE REST OF UR  LIFE!!!...

I almost got into a "Wii fans are smart, PS3 fans are stupid" mindset again. Thanks for waking me up.

I dont think we have that risk .Sony is seeing what happens with such a high pricepoint .In fact they are working hard in cost issues to lower the price .I think they got the point ,not even the Playstation legacy succesor can sell massive numbers with this kind of price .Next time they will be more careful .In fact for next generation they have already developed the BR and Cell technology .They could put a way faster BR with many layers for 200Gb discs ,a CPU composed of many Cell or Cell+ chips and simply contract again Nvidia for a good GPu and they would have the machine done and with assumable costs.The firmware and emulation software is already done(and if its CPU is a Cell-based one and its GPU by Nvidia the direct compatibility with PS3 would be good out from the box ) and so on  .This (600 dollar pricepoint ) wont happen again I think .

Didn't really feel like reading it all but I'll just respond based on the OP and the thread name.

Innovation > Graphics. Happy consumers > Unhappy customers. Affordable Prices > Unrealistic prices.

They all tie in and Nintendo, whether you like them or not, are the leaders of the pack. I'm hardly a fanboy, I just say it how it is. Nintendo and Sony both took risks. Sony's was to make a super powerful machine with insane potential, but it cost a lot to make and a lot to consumers. Nintendo, following the DS' success, went for a more broad approach, went for lower costing, but respectably powered machine. It will never touch the 360 or the PS3's horsepower, but do you really think people care that much? And by people I mean in general. The niche market gamers probably care, they like all their glam and stunning displays of "artwork", but a game is simply for enjoyment. I don't care and there's a great amount of people in the world who don't care if their games are in 1080p, or if the pixel shaders are the best, or about AA, or all that other crap. Companies, and not just console makers, need to stop worrying about what agenda THEY want to push with their products and instead focus on what the consumer wants.

I just don't understand this thread at all so your saying moving to induce an action is less immersive than pressing a button to do it? Or that a higher resolution will allow developers to produce a greater degree of art? Art is left to the developers and it is they who add their own touches to a design of a game but if all your talking about is a prettier looking picture then yes it is possible at a higher resolution if budget and time allow. Also as many have said it is completly contradictory to say a game like Zelda and Metroid can take you in but others won't these games were produced for the system your saying can't pull you in because of its graphical capabilities. Also as Spectrumgir and a few others have mentioned if your saying that basically only the most graphically superior system of one generation can pull you in which I'm guessing that's what you have to be saying otherwise your contradicting yourself again with the SNES and N64 referances, then you have to consider the PC as it has always been able to surpass consoles if not from day one within 3-4 months of their release and growing as time passes.

See, here's the difference between you and I.  I think realistic games are fine, and really good for some genres (flight simulators or certain sports games, for example), but a lot of games should be trying to be less realistic.  I play games to get away from reality, not to live it.  I don't care about taking on the role of a mass murderer in a realistic setting and stabbing people left and right.  If you do I have no problem with it, but I would much rather play something more off-the-wall, totally different, downright wacky, just strange.  But don't tell me that those types of games aren't "real" games and I'm not a "real" gamer.

I think you guys are missing what I mean by realistic. I want the game to feel realistic even if its extremely far away from real life.

Example: Unreal Tournament 3 will be realistic (feeling).

EDIT: Nevermind, this is too stupid

Can anybody here imagine how lackluster videogaming would be if only 1 company was around?